RE: [council] Issue for IDN discussion

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> To what extent is there support within the council for the allocation
> of at most 1 IDN in 1 Script per 3166-1 based ccTLD by methods chosen
> by the IDNC fast track WG, so long as it is clearly understood  that
> no other allocations may be made until such time as there is a
> community wide discussion and agreement of any further re-allocation
> of gNSO namespace to the ccNSO?

The question itself may be problematic I think.  And is one which the ccTLDs 
themselves are avoiding.  I do not think specifying "at most 1 IDN in 1 Script 
per 3166" is a good idea.  It may appear that we have not heard some of the 
sensitivities and concerns from the local communities.  i.e. I worry it would 
not be seen as supportive for the fast track (which I think is the original 
intent).

I feel that simply indicating that we are supportive of a fast track concept 
given that it is a more contained "experimental" process would be more 
appropriate than specifying 1-IDN-1-cc.

Edmon